3 ms·

I'm sure Caesars Palace is far less concerned about driving a few people to Airbnb than the lawsuits/fallout from another mass casualty incident. It's in their

by sky_rw 8y ago

I'm sure Caesars Palace is far less concerned about driving a few people to Airbnb than the lawsuits/fallout from another mass casualty incident. It's in their best interest to be overly careful here, even if it does strike us as invasive and paranoid.

netsharc 8y ago
To me it seems moronic to have a procedure to prevent a rare incident, AFTER one has happened: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_swan_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_swan_theory Just like checking shoes before boarding a plane after 1 shoe bomber... Or are they afraid of copycats? Honestly they should just invest in a bit more tech. How about modifying their lifts to detect large amounts of metals, or explosives? (Well, there's your next security technology goldmine). But of course hiring muscles is cheaper, never mind that maybe party goers will stop coming to Vegas if they get harassed.
- secfirstmd 8y ago
  Your technocentrism approach to security is contradictory. On the one hand you say shoes shouldn't be checked with tech (even though there were many AQ/ISIS bomb makers trying to use the technique) and then you say modify lifts (at enourmous cost and dubious enhanced security - what about stairs? etc) to detect explosives. Reality is that the searches of peoples stuff was a heavy handed and unclear policy that the hotels didn't make clear to the customer so that they could have an informed choice. However a Mark 1 eyeball is in this case probably the most effective choice for a security mitigation.
  - viraptor 8y ago
    The slight difference is that a tech solution in the lift would actually apply to everybody. "Mark 1 eyeballs" very likely have a big bias regarding who needs checking.
- antod 8y ago
  It seems pretty rational (even if quite cynical) to me. The covering your ass liability for a similar repeat of a black swan event must be way higher than it was the first time around. You can't claim surprise or lack of precedent for the second time, and it really does look like negligence to the circling lawyers if you didn't react to it. In risk management terms, the likelihood of a repeat might not have changed, but the consequence of a repeat sure has.

by sky_rw 8y ago

netsharc 8y ago

To me it seems moronic to have a procedure to prevent a rare incident, AFTER one has happened: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_swan_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_swan_theory Just like checking shoes before boarding a plane after 1 shoe bomber... Or are they afraid of copycats? Honestly they should just invest in a bit more tech. How about modifying their lifts to detect large amounts of metals, or explosives? (Well, there's your next security technology goldmine). But of course hiring muscles is cheaper, never mind that maybe party goers will stop coming to Vegas if they get harassed.

secfirstmd 8y ago
Your technocentrism approach to security is contradictory. On the one hand you say shoes shouldn't be checked with tech (even though there were many AQ/ISIS bomb makers trying to use the technique) and then you say modify lifts (at enourmous cost and dubious enhanced security - what about stairs? etc) to detect explosives. Reality is that the searches of peoples stuff was a heavy handed and unclear policy that the hotels didn't make clear to the customer so that they could have an informed choice. However a Mark 1 eyeball is in this case probably the most effective choice for a security mitigation.
- viraptor 8y ago
  The slight difference is that a tech solution in the lift would actually apply to everybody. "Mark 1 eyeballs" very likely have a big bias regarding who needs checking.
antod 8y ago
It seems pretty rational (even if quite cynical) to me. The covering your ass liability for a similar repeat of a black swan event must be way higher than it was the first time around. You can't claim surprise or lack of precedent for the second time, and it really does look like negligence to the circling lawyers if you didn't react to it. In risk management terms, the likelihood of a repeat might not have changed, but the consequence of a repeat sure has.